Cash for Clunkers in USA

Submitted: Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 13:12
ThreadID: 76879 Views:2517 Replies:7 FollowUps:13
This Thread has been Archived
This is a program to decomission inefficient cars and get people into new fuel efficient cars. Have a look at this video and leave your thoughts. It surely broke my heart to see a perfectly good Landcruisers heart being killed like that. What is wrong with converting it to LPG?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj5gzvGnGP4&feature=related

If you want more info on this program here it is-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_Clunkers

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: OzTroopy - Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 13:29

Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 13:29
U.S. Jeep forums are full of broken hearted stories about the loss of spare parts .... and the fact the 4.0l Jeep motor lasts longer than other brands ... when given the lethal dose.

Personally I think it was more of a ... buy a new car programme ... rather than a save the planet programme.


Bit like the calls here to get rid of old cars .... happily supported by the vehicle manufacturers ....


By all accounts it was rorted just like roof insulation programme too ...
AnswerID: 408912

Follow Up By: Blue60 - Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 15:08

Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 15:08
I think the program has it's merits for decreasing fuel consumption but surely there must be better ideas for the American car industry! What are they going to do with all of the recycled steel?
0
FollowupID: 678897

Follow Up By: OzTroopy - Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 16:14

Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 16:14
Whilst fuel consumption is an issue ... to a degree .... There certainly needs to be more realistic thought put into govt thinking.

I get 25mpg out of my current 1997 4x4 in its highway running ... My last veh got 19mpg and the one before 15mpg ... Ive done my bit for world fuel stocks unless the govt wants to provide me with a 30mpg vehicle that meets my driving requirements ... at the price Im prepared to pay for what is nothing more than a box on wheels.


I would think too ... that a new vehicle probably causes more harm to the environment in the:

appropriation of construction materials,
processing of the construction materials,
assembly to completed stage,
deliveries to dealers,

and as you mention ... causing the recycling of an old one with plenty of life left in it.

Than what a well maintained old one would ever cause ....
0
FollowupID: 678908

Follow Up By: Blue60 - Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 18:33

Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 18:33
Yes I like what you are saying here about the costs of building new vehicles. Wouldn't it be great if they built cars like they do aircraft? ie: service life of decades instead of 10 years? It seems to me that it is a catch 22 scenario. The way the system is set up encourages over consumption of energy in the turnover of vehicles to the public, not to mention every other product out there! Building cars that last forever just isn't economically viable! Society needs a system for the advancement of the human species through peaceful scientific persuits instead of the emphasis of personal/corporate wealth.
0
FollowupID: 678937

Follow Up By: guzzi - Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 19:28

Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 19:28
Blue,
Aircraft last that long because you have MANDATED maintenance requirements, by trained and authorised maintainers.
The fact that the only original part on some aircraft after 20+ years is the manufactures data plate is immaterial.
All this costs big bucks, however when I was working at Boeing Australia we could still get a lot of parts, both new and used for the B707's the RAAF was using for an aerial tanker, and they were late 1960's early 1970's model aircraft.
I agree with the hidden energy costs of new vehicles, I cant see too many people running out and purchasing this years Lada when the new Prado is just out of the box.......
0
FollowupID: 678947

Follow Up By: Mike DiD - Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 09:55

Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 09:55
Once you see the cost of parts needed to keep aircraft going for that long, you would give up the idea of maintaining cars the same way for a long life.
0
FollowupID: 679021

Follow Up By: OzTroopy - Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:32

Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:32
Mike DiD

At a $60,000 plus, change over figure for a new 4dr Troopy, not including the additional upgrade costs all new accessories/parts to suit the model .....

I can buy a hell of a lot of new and used spare parts for what Im currently driving ...

Planes have to be kept from falling out of the sky ... cars really only need good brakes and suspension/steering components to make them safe for other road users.
0
FollowupID: 679024

Follow Up By: fisho64 - Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:03

Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:03
Oztroopy
as I understand it, no one was forced to cash in any cars, so if anyone sold one its by choice.
And it was a stimulus package, designed to save jobs also.

Regarding parts for aircraft, they must be new parts, or in some cases used and properly tested and certified.
Isnt the sum of a cars spare parts around 4-10 times the complete vehicle?
0
FollowupID: 679027

Reply By: Member - Timbo - Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 13:32

Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 13:32
Sounds like fashionable way to market a bail-out program for the new car industry...
AnswerID: 408913

Follow Up By: pop2jocem - Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 17:09

Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 17:09
I think you hit the nail right on the head Timbo. The US auto industry is a basket case with (up 'til now) no way out, so put a program like this in place and see if a few more new cars get flogged off.

Cheers Pop
0
FollowupID: 678923

Reply By: cycadcenter - Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 14:53

Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 14:53
The whole deal was a massive con job the cars were sold at full retail price and the buyers got back their $3,500 to $4,500 rebate...................

Then the government sent them a tax bill on the rebate so the government got back 25-30% of the rebate.

The dealers thought it was a great joke, they got full retail for all new cars sold and didn't have to worry about what to do with the trade-ins

The day after the programme ended the discount prices went into effect again and the same old bargain could be found for a no trade deal, sell your old car and don't pay tax on it.

The government's not too bright over here.

BTW I have alwats thought that someone should give Peter Garrett a wig, just too much sun reflects off his huge melon.

Bruce

San Diego
AnswerID: 408923

Follow Up By: Blue60 - Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 15:02

Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 15:02
I think a brown paper bag would be more appropriate for Mr Garrett's head after that insulation debarcle!
0
FollowupID: 678895

Follow Up By: cycadcenter - Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 15:06

Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 15:06
Guess it wouldn't be "environmentally friendly" to use a big plastic bag.
0
FollowupID: 678896

Follow Up By: guzzi - Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 19:30

Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 19:30
A recycled potato sack and an axe handle would do it I reckon.
0
FollowupID: 678948

Reply By: Members Paul and Melissa (VIC) - Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 16:07

Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 16:07
sort of reminds me of engine blow up day a rod club used to run, you bring them a running engine,it gets put in a frame, fuel put in the sump,throttle spring reversed and fired up. which ever one ran the longest won a prize. the last one i went to a mazda 1300 won it. it ran for some phenominal time with no spark leads. they had burnt off from the exhaust heat straight out of the head.the 351 cleveland broke a rod and punched one head off, the slant 6 threw a leg out of bed and the red 186 died a slow death not before throwing the harmonic balancer off and sending it hurtling across the paddock spraying hot molten rubber over everyone!
AnswerID: 408935

Follow Up By: get outmore - Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 16:49

Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 16:49
yeeee haw now thats a redneck day out i could handle
0
FollowupID: 678919

Reply By: get outmore - Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 16:48

Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 16:48
it would take a hell of an incentive to convince me

as much as i wouldnt mind a TD 200

the government cant afford the 75k it would take to make up the shortfall before i could afford to get out of my 80 for one

a few grand aint enough
AnswerID: 408942

Reply By: Motherhen - Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 19:05

Monday, Mar 15, 2010 at 19:05
There was mention of a cash for old cars programme not so long ago. Yes, the people who could afford only an old bomb could get cash towards an upgrade, but with no further funds, they wouldn't be able to upgrade anyway. Taking the cash and walking was not an option in the scheme. The usual Government idea with a Catch 22 so it will never work.


Motherhen
Motherhen

Red desert dreaming

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 408972

Follow Up By: fisho64 - Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:35

Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:35
That was the whole idea-a stimulus package to kick the auto industry along, with benefit of getting old cars off the road, AFAIK?
0
FollowupID: 679030

Reply By: Jude&theboys - Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 21:26

Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 21:26
being the driver of a 92 VP Commodore wagon - I saw a write up of the aussie idea for a scheme and yup as someone said....what good is $4-5K off the price of a new car....am a single mum with three kids and work 5hrs a week - I can't afford a new car even with $5k off....unless they expect me to squeeze me and the kids and our camping gear into a compact and even then I'm not sure I can afford it.

My old girl might have done 300K+ but she runs well and is cared for, she'll do me for a few years yet....and when I have to give her up I'll have to buy another old bomb most likely - lets hope I get as lucky next time! One day when the kids are older I will be able to work more and then maybe buy a newer car, but any scheme has to recognise the reality of peoples situation to be effective.
AnswerID: 409144

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (14)